[129177] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Did your BGP crash today?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christian Martin)
Sat Aug 28 07:49:25 2010
In-Reply-To: <87occnt1mw.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
From: Christian Martin <christian.martin@teliris.com>
Date: Sat, 28 Aug 2010 07:48:15 -0400
To: Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de>
Cc: North American Network Operators Group <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
I think that focusing on researchers (who we assume are good-intentioned) mi=
sses the point. Any connected BGP speaker can inject any form of ugliness. =
The routers that mishandled these updates were bounded by routers that were=
able to 'properly' handle corrupted updates.=20
The question of aggressive teardown of BGP sessions after a speaker receives=
garbage has been well considered for a long time. Stop the problem at the e=
dges. The only difference here is that the edge moved one hop closer to the=
core.
/c
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 28, 2010, at 7:31 AM, Florian Weimer <fw@deneb.enyo.de> wrote:
> * Randy Bush:
>=20
>> imiho, researchers injecting data into the control plane are
>> responsible to have tested it at least against major bgp speakers.
>=20
> Practically, this boils down to "don't do that", which is certainly
> fine by me.
>=20
> To carry out such experiments responsibly, you have to conduct so much
> testing beforehand that the live test on the actual Internet will not
> yield new insights (assuming you did your pre-experiment testing
> properly).
>=20
